Constitution of India
Article 167: Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of information to Governor, etc.
Part VI — The States (Chapter II — The Executive)
Clause (a)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chief Minister must communicate to the Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the State and proposals for legislation. WHAT IT MEANS: Every Cabinet decision — administrative or legislative — must be conveyed to the Governor; the CM cannot withhold executive decisions. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Collective Responsibility — ensures the Governor knows that decisions are taken collectively, not individually.
Clause (b)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chief Minister must furnish such information relating to State administration and legislative proposals as the Governor may call for. WHAT IT MEANS: The Governor has a constitutional right to demand specific information; the CM has a mandatory duty to supply it. Refusal amounts to constitutional dereliction. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Informed Head of State — the Governor must be kept apprised to discharge functions under Articles 154, 163, and 166.
Clause (c)
WHAT IT SAYS: If the Governor so requires, the Chief Minister must submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister individually but not considered by the full Council. WHAT IT MEANS: The Governor can ensure that no single Minister bypasses the collective decision-making process; the matter must go before the full Cabinet. KEY DOCTRINE: Collective Cabinet Responsibility (Article 164(2)) — prevents unilateral ministerial action outside the Cabinet system.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United Kingdom — British Constitutional Convention (unwritten) Original provision: The PM has a customary duty to keep the Monarch informed of Cabinet decisions and to furnish information on request. What India kept: Converted unwritten convention into a justiciable constitutional duty under Art. 167 (states) and Art. 78 (Union). 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 59(4) Original provision: Rules of business required ministers and secretaries to transmit to the Governor all information he required about Provincial Government business. What India kept: The duty of information flow was retained but recast as CM's personal constitutional obligation rather than a bureaucratic rule. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Made CM the sole communication channel — Unlike 1935 Act where secretaries also transmitted information, Art. 167 designates only the CM, strengthening the CM's pivotal position. 2. Removed Governor's overriding power — Under the 1935 Act, the Governor had 'special responsibilities' allowing interference; Art. 167 only grants the Governor persuasive (not dictatorial) powers per the Sarkaria Commission. 3. Created a state-level mirror of Art. 78 — Framers ensured symmetry between Union (President-PM) and State (Governor-CM) relations for federal uniformity.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 2 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: 147 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Defended the article; argued the Governor does not get power to overrule the Council of Ministers, only to be informed and to advise, warn, and encourage. 2. H.V. Kamath (Central Provinces) — Opposed clauses (b) and (c); argued they gave a nominated Governor excessive interference power incompatible with constitutional democracy. 3. K.M. Munshi (Drafting Committee) — Supported the article; pointed out it logically flows from Draft Article 146 (Art. 166) since executive action is taken in the Governor's name, so the Governor must know what orders are passed in his name. 4. An unnamed member — Argued the Governor's right to request info should be a matter of custom (like the British Queen), not a constitutional right. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Clause (c) and Governor interference — Kamath argued clause (c) allowed the Governor to meddle in day-to-day Cabinet business of elected ministers. 2. Clause (b) and CM's discretion — Some members felt the CM should decide what information to share, not the Governor. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 147 was adopted WITHOUT any amendments on 2 June 1949. All objections were overruled by the Drafting Committee's reasoning. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: The Governor's role is to see that "the administration is kept pure, without corruption, impartial, and the proposals enunciated by the ministry are not contrary to the wishes of the people, and therefore to advise them, warn them."
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — 7-judge bench held that the Governor is a constitutional head bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; Art. 167 does not give the Governor independent executive power. 2. State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) — SC held the CM has a mandatory constitutional duty under Art. 167(b) to furnish information to the Governor; however, CM's failure to comply does not justify the Governor's refusal to summon the Assembly under Art. 174. 3. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016) — 5-judge bench held the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Art. 163/174; reaffirmed the Governor cannot unilaterally interfere in legislative proceedings. Art. 167 read with Art. 163. 4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — 9-judge bench held that the Governor's report under Art. 356 must be based on objective material; Art. 167 information-flow mechanism is integral to ensuring the Governor's access to facts for such reports. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None recorded on Art. 167 specifically; the Shamsher Singh ruling was unanimous on the point that the Governor cannot act independently based on Art. 167. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Sarkaria Commission (1988) — Observed that Art. 167 grants the Governor "persuasive and not dictatorial powers" — he cannot override or veto the Council of Ministers' decisions. 2. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Noted Art. 167 is the state counterpart of Art. 78 and is the primary constitutional link between the elected government and the constitutional head at the state level.